It was really close...

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message

We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
well-defined reasons,

And what would those be?

Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Hmmm....might need to think about that for awhile.
-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
[...]
I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

A correlation doesn't prove reason.

Gatt,

Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

And that has WHAT connection exactly to prohibiting GA traffic over
Washington?


I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security

And prohibiting GA traffic tightens security in WHICH way, exactly?

I'm really looking forward to explanations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

So, they are more important than any of the rest of us, special rules for
'special' people.

Remember a couple of years ago, when the Federal Government was so broke
that it shut down? Remember how badly that interrupted everybody's lives? Me
either.

Let's all get one thing straight, their job as political leaders is supposed
to be to SERVE US, not the other way around. If they are so paranoid that
someone or something is out to get them, they either need to change their
ways or find a new career.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Mike

Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Hmmm....might need to think about that for awhile.
-c

We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.

No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear
and
well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.

No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.


1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.

I don't know what they're doing to restrict trucks from getting close
enough, and a 5000# fertilizer bomb probably doesn't need to get too
close to leave a mark. Heck, I'd assume they're not doing enough. I
would also say that intercepting a 206 in mid-air is the least
efficient way to deal with that threat profile, but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

http://avstop.com/news/CessnaSingleEngine.html

Best,
-cwk.

wrote:
1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.

So? There are terrorist groups all over the world wishing to carry out
attacks on all sorts of people/governments.


2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

Maybe, but that doesn't warrant reductions in our freedoms.


3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

So are every car, van, SUV and truck driving around in DC. And most of
them can carry a lot more explosive payload than the overwhelming majority
of GA aircraft. Someone could probably stab you to death with a butter
knife, but we're not worrying about butter knives, are we?


Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.

Why wouldn't they just drive up to their target? They'd attract a lot
less attention.

I don't know what they're doing to restrict trucks from getting close
enough, and a 5000# fertilizer bomb probably doesn't need to get too
close to leave a mark. Heck, I'd assume they're not doing enough. I
would also say that intercepting a 206 in mid-air is the least
efficient way to deal with that threat profile, but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

Tell you what? How about the government locking all of us in our houses,
and not letting us out. That would solve the security problem. If they
see anyone outside their house, they can just shoot them immediately. I
realize that's an absurd example, but it makes the point. How much
freedom are we willing to give up for security against a relatively small
number of extremist islamists?

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.

You sure? How high a risk is that, exactly? How high to be worth how
much of a restriction of constitutional freedom?

2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

It happened once. Once.

3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.


Many other things are more possible means. Way more. Yet they are
totally unrestricted.

In the end, it comes down to weighing the desire for security against
the amount of freedom you restrict. Do you really think the current
restrictions on GA flying around DC do much to reduce the risk? With
airliners flying out of Reagan? With trucks going through the city? Or
is the more likely theory that GA pilots are a group so small that
politicians can easily restrict their freedom without too much
resistance while appearing to do something really effective in the eye
of the public, even it doesn't do much?

EFFECTIVE reductions of terror attack risk in the DC area would look
WAY different than this. And Joe Dumb Voter would feel them every day
of his life. And that's exactly why they aren't done.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are significant
statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well
defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of DC
were blockaded, and one needed prior authorization to enter or leave the
DC area - perhaps mediated by EZ-Pass and a RFID tag on driver licenses
(actually, not very farfetched at all). Since rental vans were used for
prior attacks, they are allowed to travel freely (so long as they belong
to one of the larger rental companies). However, every subcompact car
is suspect, since it can carry a bomb in the trunk.

The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and
every driver knows it.

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote:


3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.
[...]
but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

No security expert would ever address the least likely scenario first
(unless the goal was something other than achieving security).

- Andrew